Keritot 12

Chapter 12

א תנו רבנן מותר הקטרת אחת לששים או לשבעים שנה היו מפטמין אותה לחצאין לפיכך יחיד שפיטם לחצאין חייב דברי רבן שמעון בן גמליאל שאמר משום הסגן
1 Our Rabbis have taught: [By reason of] the remnants of frankincense once in sixty or seventy years only half the quantity was manufactured.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the handfuls of the high priest on the Day of Atonement amounted approximately to half a maneh, the remnant each year was about two and a half manehs. During a period of between sixty and seventy years the remnants accumulated to half the yearly quantity. When this was reached only a supplementary half was newly manufactured.');"><sup>1</sup></span> Therefore, if a stranger compounds half the quantity, he is culpable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This transgression applies only to quantities otherwise manufactured for the Temple.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ב אבל שליש ורביע לא שמעתי וחכמים אומרים בכל יום מתקן במתכונתה והיה מכניס
2 Thus the view of Rabban Simeon son of Gamaliel, who said this in the name of the Segan;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The deputy high priest.');"><sup>3</sup></span> while there is no tradition that a third or a fourth of the quantity was ever compounded.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that two-thirds or three-quarters were allowed to be accumulated.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ג מסייע ליה לרבא דאמר רבא שמן המשחה שפטמו לחצאין חייב דכתיב (שמות ל, לז) והקטרת אשר תעשה כל שתעשה והא אפשר דעבדה פרס בשחרית ופרס בין הערבים
3 The Sages hold: He prepared frankincense each day<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., one maneh. A stranger is accordingly guilty for the manufacture of one maneh.');"><sup>5</sup></span> according to its composition and offered it up. This supports Raba; for Raba said: If one compounds half the quantity of frankincense,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or even less, as is proved from the text. In cur. edd. oil of anointing stands in place of frankincense, but in supra ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ד ת"ר היו מחזירין אותה למכתשת פעמים בשנה בימות החמה פזורה שלא תתעפש בימות הגשמים צבורה כדי שלא תפוג ריחה וכשהוא שוחק אומר הדק היטב היטב הדק דברי אבא יוסי בן יוחנן
4 he is capable, for it is written: And the incense which thou shalt make etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXX, 37.');"><sup>7</sup></span> ; whatever [quantity] you make, and it is possible for one to prepare half [a maneh] in the morning and half in the evening. Our Rabbis have taught: Twice in the course of the year is the incense put back into the mortar.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To induce fragrance.');"><sup>8</sup></span> During the summer it is scattered, so that it does not rot away; during the winter it is heaped together, so that its fragrance may not escape.
ה ושלש מנין יתירין שמהן כ"ג מכניס מלא חפניו ביוה"כ נותן אותה למכתשת בערב יוה"כ ושוחקן יפה יפה כדי שתהא דקה מן הדקה כדתניא (ויקרא טז, יב) דקה מה ת"ל והלא כבר נאמר (שמות ל, לו) ושחקת ממנו הדק מה ת"ל דקה כדי שתהא דקה מן הדקה
5 While it is being beaten, he<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The superintendent calls to him who pounds the incense.');"><sup>9</sup></span> calls out: 'Pound well, well pound'. These are the words of Abba Jose B'Johanan. The three remaining manehs of which the high priest on the Day of Atonement separates his handfuls, are put back in the mortar on the eve of the Day of Atonement and pounded very thoroughly, so that the incense is of the very finest, as it has been taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Yoma 45a.');"><sup>10</sup></span> 'Wherefore is beaten small<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 12 referring to the handfuls on the Day of Atonement.');"><sup>11</sup></span> stated, since it is written already: And thou shalt beat some of it very small?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXX, 36.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
ו אמר מר כשהוא שוחק אומר היטב הדק הדק היטב מסייע ליה לר' יוחנן דאמר ר"י כשם שהדיבור רע ליין כן הדיבור יפה לבשמים
6 That it has to be the very finest. The Master said: "While it is being beaten, he calls out: "Pound well, well pound".' This supports R'Johanan; for R'Johanan said: Just as speech<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., speaking while it is being prepared.');"><sup>13</sup></span> is harmful to wine, so it is beneficial to spices.
ז א"ר יוחנן י"א סממנין נאמרו לו למשה בסיני אמר רב הונא מאי קראה (שמות ל, לד) קח לך סמים תרי נטף ושחלת וחלבנה הא חמשה וסמים אחריני חמשה הא עשרה ולבונה זכה חד הא חד סרי
7 Said R'Johanan: Eleven kinds of spices<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only four are mentioned in Ex. XXX, 34.');"><sup>14</sup></span> were named to Moses at Sinai. Said R'Huna: 'Where is the text? Take unto thee sweet spices, at least two; stacte, and onycha, and galbanum, that makes together five; 'sweet spices' means another five, that makes together ten; 'with pure frankincense', which is one, that is together eleven.' Why not say, 'sweet spices' [at the beginning] is a general statement, stacte, and onycha, and galbanum' a specification, and 'sweet spices' [at the end] is again a general statement! ['We have thus, a generalization followed by a specification and then by a generalisation, [in which case] only things sharing the qualities of the specification may be derived. Just as the [items of the] specification are things whose smoke ascends upwards and whose fragrance spreads, so include all things whose smoke ascends upwards and whose fragrance spreads.
ח ואימא סמים כלל נטף ושחלת וחלבנה פרט סמים חזר וכלל כלל ופרט וכלל אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט מה הפרט מפורש דבר שקיטר ועולה וריחו נודף אף כל דבר שקיטר ועולה וריחו נודף
8 And should you say in this case only one [item of] specification should have been mentioned, [I would answer] No, all are necessary; for if 'stacte' alone was written, I might have said: Only things from the tree [are to be taken], but not things growing on the ground. It was thus necessary to state 'onycha'. And if 'onycha' alone was written, I might have said: Only things from the ground, but not from the tree.
ט וכ"ת א"כ לכתוב קרא חד פרטא לאיי מיצרך צריכי דאי כתב נטף ה"א מין אילן אין אבל גידולי קרקע לא מש"ה כתב ושחלת ואי כתב ושחלת ה"א גידולי קרקע אין אבל מין אילן אימא לא משום הכי כתב נטף
9 It was thus necessary to state 'stacte'. As to 'galbanum', its mention is necessary for its own sake, for its odour is unpleasant<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Had it not been explicitly mentioned, I would not have included it.');"><sup>15</sup></span> if so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or even less, as is proved from the text. In cur. edd. oil of anointing stands in place of frankincense, but in supra ');"><sup>6</sup></span> it could have been derived from: Take unto thee.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which would have served as a generalisation without the addition of 'spices'.');"><sup>17</sup></span>
י וחלבנה לגופיה אתא מפני שריחה רע א"כ מקח לך נפקא ליה
10 But perhaps say: 'The sweet spices' in the latter part [of the verse] mean two, as 'the sweet spices' in the former part?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not five.');"><sup>18</sup></span> Then it should have written the two expressions 'sweet spices' next to one another, and then write 'stacte, and onycha, and galbanum'.
יא ואימא סמים בתראי תרין נינהו כסמים קדמאי א"כ נכתוב סמים סמים בהדי הדדי וסוף נכתוב נטף ושחלת וחלבנה
11 In the School of R'Ishmael it was taught thus: 'Sweet spices' is a generalisation, 'stacte, and onycha, and galbanum' is a specification, sweet spices' again is a generalisation, and from a generalisation followed by a specification and then by another generalisation one can derive only things sharing the qualities of the specification. As the [items in the] specification are things whose smoke ascends upwards and whose fragrance spreads, so all things whose smoke ascends upwards and whose fragrance spreads.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Ishmael's School resorts both to the principle of generalisation etc. and to the exposition of R. Huna, the former teaching that it must be of a kind whose smoke ascends and fragrance spreads, and the latter indicating the number.');"><sup>19</sup></span> Perhaps this is not so; but take the generalisation with the first generalisation, the specification with the first specification?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This last question and the answer are obscure, and will be explained immediately.');"><sup>20</sup></span> - Say: This cannot be; hence you must not expound according to the latter version but according to the former. The Master said: 'Perhaps this is not so, but take the generalisation with the first generalisation and the specification with the first specification? - Say: This cannot be, hence you cannot expound.'
יב דבי רבי ישמעאל תני סמים כלל נטף שחלת וחלבנה פרט סמים חזר וכלל כלל ופרט וכלל אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט מה הפרט מפורש דבר שקיטר ועולה וריחו נודף אף כל דבר שקיטר ועולה וריחו נודף
12 'What is the question? - This is his difficulty: Let the sweet spices' in the latter part [of the verse] mean two like 'sweet spices' in the former.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This then is the meaning: perhaps the second generalisation (sweet spices) has the same connotation as the first and implies no more than 'two'; whence then is the number eleven derived?');"><sup>21</sup></span> 'Whereupon he replied as was answered before: Then it should have written, 'Sweet spices, sweet spices, stacte, onycha and galbanum'. What is the meaning of 'and the specification with the first specification'? - This is his difficulty: Things of the tree are derived from 'stacte', and things of the ground from 'onycha'; why not then derive from 'pure frankincense' all things which have one quality in common with it [viz. ,] that their fragrance spreads, though their smoke does not ascend upwards?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And thus the question is, perhaps the last specification is to be taken in conjunction with the first and the others that precede the second generalisation?');"><sup>22</sup></span>
יג או אינו אלא כלל בכלל ראשון ופרט בפרט ראשון אמרת לאו הא אין לך עליך לדון בלשון אחרון אלא בלשון ראשון
13 Whereupon he replied: If this was so, 'pure frankincense' should have been written among the others,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e.,among the specifications enclosed by the two generalisations, 'sweet spices'.');"><sup>23</sup></span> so that you could derive therefrom. But if 'pure frankincense' was written among the others, we would have twelve spices.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the latter expression 'sweet spices' doubles the number of spices enumerated before, which in this case would be six. rye');"><sup>24</sup></span>
יד אמר מר או אינו אלא כלל בכלל ראשון ופרט בפרט ראשון אמרת לאו הא אין עליך לדון מאי קושיא הכי קא קשיא ליה סמים בתראי תרי כי סמים קדמאי תרין הדר ושני כדשנין דא"כ נכתוב קרא סמים סמים נטף ושחלת וחלבנה
14 - 'Pure frankincense' should have been written among the others and 'galbanum' at the end. Resh Lakish says: From the word itself it can be inferred; for ketoreth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The root means 'to rise in circles'.');"><sup>25</sup></span> [frankincense] means something whose smoke ascends upwards. Said R'Hana B'Bizna in the name of R'Hisda the pious:A fast in which none of the sinners of Israel participate is no fast;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sinners should not be excluded as unworthy of joining their fellow-Jews in prayer. sdt u,sudtu');"><sup>26</sup></span> for behold the odour of galbanum is unpleasant and yet it was included among the spices for the incense. Abaye says: 'We learn this from the text: And hath founded his vault upon the earth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Amos IX, 6. The root of 'his vault' means to bind together. Only when all his creatures are bound together is this creation on earth founded.');"><sup>27</sup></span> OR USES OIL OF ANOINTING. Our Rabbis have taught: He who pours the oil of anointing over cattle or vessels is not guilty; if over heathens or the dead, he is not guilty.
טו ומאי פרט בפרט ראשון הכי קא קשיא ליה מיני אילנות ילפי מן נטף וגידולי קרקע ילפי משחלת ולילפי נמי מלבונה זכה דאייתי בחד צד דניתי דבר שריחו נודף ואע"פ שאין קוטר ועולה
15 The law relating to cattle and vessels is right, for it is written: Upon the flesh of man [adam] shall it not be poured;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXX, 32. ost');"><sup>28</sup></span> and cattle and vessels are not man. Also with regard to the dead, [it is plausible] that he is exempt, since after death one is called corpse and not man.
טז הדר אמר א"כ נכתוב קרא ללבונה זכה במיצעי ותילף מינה
16 But why is one exempt in the case of heathens; are they not in the category of adam? - No, it is written: And ye my sheep, the sheep of my pasture, are adam [man]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ezek. XXXIV, 31. The passage continues: And I am your God, saith the Lord God. It is thus clear that the term in this sentence does not denote 'man' but Israelite. The term adam is used to denote man made in the image of God (v. Gen. IX, 6, for in the image of God He made adam) and heathens by their idolatry and idolatrous conduct mar this divine image and forfeit the designation adam (v. B.M. Sonc. ed. p. 651, n. 7) . There is therefore a possibility that also oil used in Ex. XXX, 32 is to be understood in this restrictive sense, particularly as the distinction between holy and profane made in the text (it reads there, 'it is holy and it shall be holy unto you') is meaningful only to one who believes in the ideal of the holy.');"><sup>29</sup></span> Ye are called adam but heathens are not called 'adam.
יז אי כתביה לבונה זכה במיצעי הויין תרי עשר אם כן נכתוב קרא לבונה זכה במיצעי וחלבנה לבסוף ריש לקיש אמר מגופה מה לשון קטרת דבר שקוטר ועולה
17 But is it not written: And the persons [adam] were sixteen thousand?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXXI, 40 referring to the heathen Midianites.');"><sup>30</sup></span> - Because it is used in opposition to cattle.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. the context.');"><sup>31</sup></span> But is it not written: And should I not have pity on Nineveh [that great city, wherein are more than six score thousand persons [adam]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Jonah IV, 11.');"><sup>32</sup></span> - This too is used in opposition to cattle.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. the end of the passage.');"><sup>33</sup></span>
יח א"ר חנא בר בזנא א"ר שמעון חסידא כל תענית שאין בה מפושעי ישראל אינה תענית שהרי חלבנה ריחה רע ומנאה הכתוב עם סממני קטרת אביי אמר מהכא (עמוס ט, ו) ואגודתו על ארץ יסדה:
18 Or, if you wish, I might explain it in the light of what a Tanna recited before R'Eleazar: Whosoever is subject to the prohibition 'he shall not pour' is subject to [the law] 'it shall not be poured [over him]'; but he who i not subject to 'he shall not pour' is not subject to 'it shall not be poured [over him]'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The prohibition of using sacred oil for profane purposes is thus binding for the Israelites only.');"><sup>34</sup></span> Another [Baraitha] taught: If one anoints with the oil of anointing cattle, vessels, heathens and the dead, is not culpable; if kings and priests, R'Meir holds he is culpable and R'Judah that he is exempt. How much has one to put in order to be culpable? R'Meir says: Any quantity; R'Judah says: As much as that of the bulk of an olive.
יט והסך בשמן המשחה: ת"ר הסך בשמן המשחה לבהמה וכלים פטור לעובדי כוכבים ולמתים פטור בשלמא בהמה וכלים דכתיב (שמות ל, לב) על בשר אדם לא ייסך ובהמה וכלים לאו אדם הוא מתים נמי פטור דכיון דמית ליה מת מיקרי ולאו אדם אלא עובדי כוכבים אמאי פטור הא אדם נינהו
19 But did not R'Judah say that one is exempt? - R'Judah exempts only in the case of kings and priests,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After they had been anointed. Rashi reads, high priests.');"><sup>35</sup></span> but in the case of laymen he declares one culpable. What is the ground of dispute between R'Meir and R'Judah? - Said R'Joseph: They dispute in this: R'Meir holds, It is written: Upon the flesh of man shall it not be poured;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXX, 32.');"><sup>36</sup></span> and it is also written: Or whosoever putteth of it upon a stranger:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. v. 33. Lit., 'whosoever giveth'. The analogy later between putting and giving is based upon this literal translation.');"><sup>37</sup></span> As the [prohibition of] anointing applies to any quantity,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since there the term 'anointing' implies any quantity however small.');"><sup>38</sup></span> so also the [prohibition of] putting [upon a stranger];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although elsewhere 'putting' (lit., 'giving') implies at least the bulk of an olive.');"><sup>39</sup></span> while R'Judah holds, The [implication of] 'putting upon a stranger' is derived from 'giving' elsewhere: as 'giving' implies at least an olive size,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Pes. ');"><sup>40</sup></span> so also the 'putting upon a stranger at least an olive size; but with regard to the pouring for the anointing of kings and priests both agree that any quantity suffices.
כ לאיי דכתיב (יחזקאל לד, לא) ואתן צאני צאן מרעיתי אדם אתם אתם קרויין אדם ואין העובדי כוכבים קרויין אדם
20 Then said R'Joseph: 'Whereupon rests the dispute between R'Meir and R'Judah with reference to kings and priests?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., when unlawfully anointed.');"><sup>41</sup></span> R'Meir holds: It is written: 'Or whosoever putteth of it upon a stranger', and king and priest are now to be regarded as strangers;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For anointing after their first anointment is no longer prescribed for them.');"><sup>42</sup></span>
כא והכתיב (במדבר לא, מו) ונפש אדם ששה עשר אלף א"ל ההוא לאפוקי בהמה
21 while R'Judah maintains [to involve culpability] it is essential that one i a 'stranger' from beginning to end; but kings and priests were not considered [always] strangers.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For there was a time when they were required to be anointed, and were not strangers.');"><sup>43</sup></span> Said R'Ika the son of R'Ammi: They<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Meir and R. Judah.');"><sup>44</sup></span> follow their own reasoning elsewhere; for we have learnt:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ter. VII, 2.');"><sup>45</sup></span>
כב והכתיב (יונה ד, יא) ואני לא אחוס על נינוה וגו' ההוא לאפוקי בהמה
22 
כג ואיבעית אימא כדקתני תנא קמיה דר"א כל שישנו בסך ישנו בבל ייסך וכל שאינו בסך אינו בבל ייסך
23 
כד תניא אידך הסך בשמן המשחה לבהמה וכלים לעובדי כוכבים ומתים פטור למלכים ולכהנים ר"מ מחייב ור' יהודה פוטר וכמה יסוך ויהא חייב ר' מאיר אומר כל שהוא רבי יהודה אומר כזית והאמר ר"י פטור כי פטר ר' יהודה גבי מלכים וכהנים גבי הדיוט מחייב
24 
כה ר"מ ור' יהודה במאי פליגי א"ר יוסף בהא פליגי ר"מ סבר על בשר אדם לא ייסך כתיב וכתיב (שמות ל, לג) ואשר יתן ממנו על זר מה סיכה כל שהוא אף נתינה כל שהוא
25 
כו ורבי יהודה סבר ילפינן נתינה דעל זר מנתינה דעלמא מה נתינה דעלמא כזית אף נתינה דעל זר כזית אבל סיכה למימשח מלכים וכהנים דברי הכל כל שהוא
26 
כז וא"ר יוסף במאי פליגי רבי מאיר ורבי יהודה גבי מלכים וכהנים ר"מ סבר ואשר יתן ממנו על זר כתיב ומלך וכהן השתא זרים נינהו ורבי יהודה סבר בעינן עד דאיכא זר מתחלתו ועד סופו ומלך וכהן מעיקרא לאו זרים הוו
27 
כח א"ר איקא בריה דרב אמי ואזדו לטעמייהו דתניא
28 
Previous ChapterNext Chapter